Cathy McMorris-Rogers to deliver GOP’s State of the Union rebuttal

posted at 5:21 pm on January 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

Guy beat me to the punch in the Greenroom but it’s always frontpage-worthy when someone gets the most thankless job in Washington. Has there ever been a memorable SOTU rebuttal? The only two I can remember over the past five years were Bobby Jindal’s, which was only noteworthy because his delivery was universally panned, and Rubio’s, which featured the water sip that launched a thousand dumb Internet memes. In fact, looking back over the list of Republicans who’ve given the rebuttal since O took office, every one of them has seen his fortunes decline afterward. 2009 was Jindal, whose approval rating in Louisiana has dropped and who’s gone from likely future nominee to second-tier candidate. 2010 was Bob McDonnell, about whom let us say no more. 2011 was Paul Ryan, who ended up on the ticket, lost, and is now derided by righties for striking a weak budget deal with Democrats and agreeing to cut military benefits. 2012 was Mitch Daniels, then in his final year as governor of Indiana, now out of office and his political career seemingly over despite heavy overtures from the GOP establishment to run for president. And 2013 was Rubio, who was just then embarking on his big amnesty experiment in the Senate. A year later, with the Gang of Eight bill going nowhere, he has yet to be forgiven for it by righty activists and is in single digits in primary polls after having led in several last year. Note to Cathy McMorris-Rogers: Good luck.

Seriously, though, as the highest-ranking Republican woman in either chamber with a compelling bio to boot, she’s a natural choice to counter the Democrats’ “war on women” nonsense. I’m a little surprised they didn’t ask a woman with a bigger name, though. Nikki Haley? Susana Martinez? It’s a truism these days that the real energy in the GOP these days is coming from its governors. Why ask a House member?

I’m a little surprised they didn’t ask a woman with a bigger name, though. Nikki Haley? Susana Martinez? It’s a truism these days that the real energy in the GOP these days is coming from its governors. Why ask a House member?

Isn’t the correct term “Republican Response?” Rebuttal suggests the GOP is willing to fight the rat-eared bastard and the Boehner/McConnel surrender weasels prove that isn’t true. Thanks to the GOP, Obamacare is still on track, the Senate is de-fanged of the filibuster, amesty and federal recognition of same-sex marriage as a legitimate lifestyle choice are all looming.

Is Ms. McMorris Rogers isn’t going to get up there and do something other than express deep concern, then it isn’t a rebuttal.

In fact, looking back over the list of Republicans who’ve given the rebuttal since O took office, every one of them has seen his fortunes decline afterward.

Because War on Women!!!11@!!!

It’s another lame attempt by Republicans to play identity politics. The problem is they’re pathetic at the game. By comparison, Republicans make the Bad News Bears look like Olympic gold medalists. They’re that bad.

Seriously, though, as the highest-ranking Republican woman in either chamber with a compelling bio to boot, she’s a natural choice to counter the Democrats’ “war on women” nonsense.

Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez are more polarizing. Few if any people stick around for the SOTU response but many who might be influenced would definitely turn off if it were a Haley, Martinez, or (LOL) Sarah Palin. And she does have a compelling bio which, apparently, isn’t embellished by trailer parks or fictional accounts of childhood and educational challenges.

OT/ FNC just aired that ad for StartUpNY where NY claims that it is business friendly and a good place to relocate. Given Cuomo’s comments about agreeing with him or getting the hell out of his state, shouldn’t there be a counter campaign UpYoursNY?

I think the biggest problem is the fact it’s a ‘rebuttal’. By its very nature, a rebuttal will come across as negative, so it’s no wondering Republicans come across as flat. Instead of a rebuttal, the speech should be constructive, a chance to sell the Conservative message to the electorate.

Well then, lets move on to something that matters. What do you suppose the Christie love is going to be in tonights QOTD? As near as I can tell the fat man stayed out of the limelight as the investigations continue.

I think the biggest problem is the fact it’s a ‘rebuttal’. By its very nature, a rebuttal will come across as negative, so it’s no wondering Republicans come across as flat. Instead of a rebuttal, the speech should be constructive, a chance to sell the Conservative message to the electorate.

Scopper on January 23, 2014 at 5:52 PM

That is why it is called the Republican/Democrat RESPONSE. It is also a thankless task. A boring policy speech without the crowd of partisans jumping up and clapping on cue like trained seals.

Too be fair Jindal, a.k.a. Alfred E. Newman, is completely and utterly insane. The little freak show thinks he’s an exorcist! Sweet fancy Moses what a maroon. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA religion makes you stupider then a box of hammers.

And she’s one of Boehner’s sock puppets in drafting the “principles” for immigration amnesty. You think legalization won’t make it in there? And that she would remove herself from the drafting committee if it does?

It’s great that she voted for the fence and for making English the official language, but the rubber meets the road when legalization comes into play. And Boehner is going to get that in there…with McMorris-Rodgers’ help.

I’m a little surprised they didn’t ask a woman with a bigger name, though. Nikki Haley? Susana Martinez? It’s a truism these days that the real energy in the GOP these days is coming from its governors. Why ask a House member?

Given your premise that the Republican who gives the SOTU implodes politically, I’d rather see a little known house member implode than a prominent Republican woman governor who could potentially be on the ticket in 2016.

And she’s one of Boehner’s sock puppets in drafting the “principles” for immigration amnesty. You think legalization won’t make it in there? And that she would remove herself from the drafting committee if it does?

I think that may be unfair to her. Look at the votes she’s taken not what you think Boehner’s going to do.

What she has said about the “principles” is: We need to have a workable ag-guest worker program in place. We need to address visas. She has said that she opposes amnesty.

From Wikipedia:
Jindal was one of 50 students nationwide admitted to the Program in Liberal Medical Education (PLME) at Brown University, guaranteeing him a place in medical school. Jindal completed majors in biology and public policy. He graduated in 1991 at the age of 20, with honors in both majors. Jindal was named to the 1992 USA Today All-USA Academic Team. He applied to and was accepted by both Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, but studied at New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. He received an M.Litt. degree in political science with an emphasis in health policy from the University of Oxford in 1994, where the subject of his thesis was “A needs-based approach to health care”. He turned down an offer to study for a D.Phil. in politics, instead joining the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. He then interned in the office of Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, where McCrery assigned him to work on healthcare policy; Jindal spent two weeks studying Medicare to compile an extensive report on possible solutions to Medicare’s financial problems which he presented to McCrery.

So…Jindal achieved all that, and you don’t know the difference between “then” and “than,” but somehow he’s the idiot?

“We must pass immigration reform,” McMorris Rodgers, the fourth-ranking House Republican, said. “It’s a priority for Republicans, for Democrats. There’s a recognition that it’s important to America. It’s important to our economy. America has long been the land of immigrants.”

And you think she is okey-dokey with the illegals “staying in the shadows”?
Bitter Clinger on January 23, 2014 at 6:27 PM

What does that mean?

kcewa on January 23, 2014 at 6:28 PM

You said that she says she is against amnesty. That means she is against legalization. So that would mean that the illegals “stay in the shadows”. Because anything that gives them any kind of legal status that keeps them here is amnesty, whether it’s called that or not.

It’s great that she voted for the fence and for making English the official language, but the rubber meets the road when legalization comes into play. And Boehner is going to get that in there…with McMorris-Rodgers’ help.